Gary Childress wrote:
I've heard it claimed that before Hegel's time the concept of history as "progress" or progression toward some better society of sorts was largely not the way most people viewed history. In fact, according to Karl Popper in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies, Plato tended to view history as a process of decay from some sort of idyllic or perfect past.

There has always been that tension, between progress and decay. The Greeks, especially in Hesiod, had their ages: Golden, Silver, Bronze, Heroic, then Iron. It was all pretty much downhill from the end of the Golden age; Rome had Ovid's Four ages, omitting "Heroes". Plato did not originate this idea.
Archeology was pretty much influenced by the idea of these stages, but with the idea of progress following the "Enlightenment", and the discovery of Stone tools. Silver and Gold were replaces by "Stone Age".
But it only takes a moment's thought to see that the stadial view of history is absurd, and tends to lead to anachronistic thinking, as no one in the stone age could possibly think if themselves that way.
I once read a archaeology book that caricatured this idea by quoting a film; "Come, men of the Middle Ages, we are about to embark upon the 100 years war".

Interesting. I saw Michael Wood's documentary on the Trojan was a kid and remember Wood making the point that each archaeologist who visited the site of Troy to dig came away with a picture of what they thought happened at Troy that seemed more to reflect the character of the times the archaeologist himself lived. When an archaeologist digs in the ground all they find are pieces of pottery or walls and other artifacts that seldom tell a complete story. So pieces are sometimes filled in assuming that our own experiences in our own time can somehow be used to explain those people of a bygone era, their cares and concerns. In some ways I suppose they probably had many of the same problems and concerns as we do but in other ways I wonder if their world views didn't, in some cases, produce radically different interpretations of their own existence? It seems we in the present will never know the past with any certainty.

Gary Childress wrote:
I've heard it claimed that before Hegel's time the concept of history as "progress" or progression toward some better society of sorts was largely not the way most people viewed history. In fact, according to Karl Popper in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies, Plato tended to view history as a process of decay from some sort of idyllic or perfect past.

There has always been that tension, between progress and decay. The Greeks, especially in Hesiod, had their ages: Golden, Silver, Bronze, Heroic, then Iron. It was all pretty much downhill from the end of the Golden age; Rome had Ovid's Four ages, omitting "Heroes". Plato did not originate this idea.
Archeology was pretty much influenced by the idea of these stages, but with the idea of progress following the "Enlightenment", and the discovery of Stone tools. Silver and Gold were replaces by "Stone Age".
But it only takes a moment's thought to see that the stadial view of history is absurd, and tends to lead to anachronistic thinking, as no one in the stone age could possibly think if themselves that way.
I once read a archaeology book that caricatured this idea by quoting a film; "Come, men of the Middle Ages, we are about to embark upon the 100 years war".

Interesting. I saw Michael Wood's documentary on the Trojan was a kid and remember Wood making the point that each archaeologist who visited the site of Troy to dig came away with a picture of what they thought happened at Troy that seemed more to reflect the character of the times the archaeologist himself lived. When an archaeologist digs in the ground all they find are pieces of pottery or walls and other artifacts that seldom tell a complete story. So pieces are sometimes filled in assuming that our own experiences in our own time can somehow be used to explain those people of a bygone era, their cares and concerns. In some ways I suppose they probably had many of the same problems and concerns as we do but in other ways I wonder if their world views didn't, in some cases, produce radically different interpretations of their own existence? It seems we in the present will never know the past with any certainty.

Ah yes, Michael Wood, and his "In search of..." series. Wonderful. My favourite was "In search of Eric Bloodaxe". My PhD supervisor (may he RIP), used to call his series "In search of the tighter trousers", on account of his ever decreasing jean size.
It's easy yo slate Schliemann and his "jewels on Helen" worn by his wife, and found on the steps of Troy "exactly where Helen had dropped them whilst fleeing", but in fact bought at a local market. What he found was not the Troy of Homer and he did much damage rendering the search pretty much a lost cause.
In a series way there is no way yo find the "real Homeric Troy" as it is possible that such a siege never happened, yet there was continued conflict between the Greek world and that part of "Turkey" so much that the entire west coast was basically Greek right from the Dark age through into the Classical period. So there is no doubt that such conflicts took place - but over 10 years and with an alliance of 200 ships? I think not.

But even the most careful and 'objective minded' Archaeologist has to have an idea of what s/he wants to find, and the evidence if coloured and conceived in that light. I'd go so far as to say that archaeologists who acknowledge their subjectivity are in a far better position to offer a more lasting and reflexive interpretation.

Gary Childress wrote:
I've heard it claimed that before Hegel's time the concept of history as "progress" or progression toward some better society of sorts was largely not the way most people viewed history. In fact, according to Karl Popper in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies, Plato tended to view history as a process of decay from some sort of idyllic or perfect past.

There has always been that tension, between progress and decay. The Greeks, especially in Hesiod, had their ages: Golden, Silver, Bronze, Heroic, then Iron. It was all pretty much downhill from the end of the Golden age; Rome had Ovid's Four ages, omitting "Heroes". Plato did not originate this idea.
Archeology was pretty much influenced by the idea of these stages, but with the idea of progress following the "Enlightenment", and the discovery of Stone tools. Silver and Gold were replaces by "Stone Age".
But it only takes a moment's thought to see that the stadial view of history is absurd, and tends to lead to anachronistic thinking, as no one in the stone age could possibly think if themselves that way.
I once read a archaeology book that caricatured this idea by quoting a film; "Come, men of the Middle Ages, we are about to embark upon the 100 years war".

Interesting. I saw Michael Wood's documentary on the Trojan was a kid and remember Wood making the point that each archaeologist who visited the site of Troy to dig came away with a picture of what they thought happened at Troy that seemed more to reflect the character of the times the archaeologist himself lived. When an archaeologist digs in the ground all they find are pieces of pottery or walls and other artifacts that seldom tell a complete story. So pieces are sometimes filled in assuming that our own experiences in our own time can somehow be used to explain those people of a bygone era, their cares and concerns. In some ways I suppose they probably had many of the same problems and concerns as we do but in other ways I wonder if their world views didn't, in some cases, produce radically different interpretations of their own existence? It seems we in the present will never know the past with any certainty.

I have Wood's book on that and it is pleasant reading from time to time.

I have re-read it dozens of times.

I disagree with Wood's own conclusion about Troy VI.

To me it seems like Troy VII is the city of the Trojan War. The shanties and the stores of jars make perfect sense for a 10 year siege.

The Iliad makes more sense after reading Woods' book. And then the Odyssey makes more sense after studying both of the others first.

Any novel is essentially a remake of the Odyssey, and any documentary is that of the Iliad.

They both however contain elements of documentary and fiction.

While I don't doubt there was a Trojan War, and I also don't doubt that Odysseus had a hard time getting all the way back home to Ithaca, I don't believe in sea monsters or goddesses.

yiostheoy wrote:
While I don't doubt there was a Trojan War, and I also don't doubt that Odysseus had a hard time getting all the way back home to Ithaca, I don't believe in sea monsters or goddesses.

You are missing the point. There never was "a" Trojan war. The east was continuously invaded by Greek speaking peoples throughout the period of the Dark Ages and led to a full scale settlement of the entire coastline from the top to bottom of "modern Turkey".

In fact there is nothing even to suggest that the Trojans themselves were not also Greek Speakers.
Homer makes a point about the barbarous language of Penthesilia, and her Amazons, but never once mentions the slightest difficulty in communicating with the Trojans. Why?

The story of Troy and the siege is a myth. It's about the lengths that loyalty can be pushed once oaths are made, and the heroism of humans with everything to loose against the petty mindedness of Gods and Goddesses who fear to upset their reputations and bicker like children. It's also about "HELEN" (hint the Greeks) giving herself to the east ( a metaphor for the mass migration of her people to settle there)

Any one of the phases of so-called "Troy" (even if they have the right location, which I doubt) could have hosted such a siege. But it is highly doubtful if people named Achilleus, Agamemnon, Hector, Odysseus, and Helen were ever involved

yiostheoy wrote:
While I don't doubt there was a Trojan War, and I also don't doubt that Odysseus had a hard time getting all the way back home to Ithaca, I don't believe in sea monsters or goddesses.

You are missing the point. There never was "a" Trojan war. The east was continuously invaded by Greek speaking peoples throughout the period of the Dark Ages and led to a full scale settlement of the entire coastline from the top to bottom of "modern Turkey".

In fact there is nothing even to suggest that the Trojans themselves were not also Greek Speakers.
Homer makes a point about the barbarous language of Penthesilia, and her Amazons, but never once mentions the slightest difficulty in communicating with the Trojans. Why?

The story of Troy and the siege is a myth. It's about the lengths that loyalty can be pushed once oaths are made, and the heroism of humans with everything to loose against the petty mindedness of Gods and Goddesses who fear to upset their reputations and bicker like children. It's also about "HELEN" (hint the Greeks) giving herself to the east ( a metaphor for the mass migration of her people to settle there)

Any one of the phases of so-called "Troy" (even if they have the right location, which I doubt) could have hosted such a siege. But it is highly doubtful if people named Achilleus, Agamemnon, Hector, Odysseus, and Helen were ever involved

Well I certainly do not doubt Agamemnon, Menelaus, Clytemnestra, Helen, Odysseus, Achilles, Hector, or the sack of Troy VII around 1300 BCE.

The most likely candidate for Homer is actually Briseis herself. She was a hostage of the Greeks, and homer means hostage.

Whether Odysseus took her with him after the deaths of Achilles and Agamemnon is possible, and then she would have also known the story of Odysseus too, only just having left herself out.

The other possibility of Homer was Helen herself.

It is clear that a woman composed The Odyssey. It is not clear if the same person also composed the Iliad as well.

yiostheoy wrote:
While I don't doubt there was a Trojan War, and I also don't doubt that Odysseus had a hard time getting all the way back home to Ithaca, I don't believe in sea monsters or goddesses.

You are missing the point. There never was "a" Trojan war. The east was continuously invaded by Greek speaking peoples throughout the period of the Dark Ages and led to a full scale settlement of the entire coastline from the top to bottom of "modern Turkey".

In fact there is nothing even to suggest that the Trojans themselves were not also Greek Speakers.
Homer makes a point about the barbarous language of Penthesilia, and her Amazons, but never once mentions the slightest difficulty in communicating with the Trojans. Why?

The story of Troy and the siege is a myth. It's about the lengths that loyalty can be pushed once oaths are made, and the heroism of humans with everything to loose against the petty mindedness of Gods and Goddesses who fear to upset their reputations and bicker like children. It's also about "HELEN" (hint the Greeks) giving herself to the east ( a metaphor for the mass migration of her people to settle there)

Any one of the phases of so-called "Troy" (even if they have the right location, which I doubt) could have hosted such a siege. But it is highly doubtful if people named Achilleus, Agamemnon, Hector, Odysseus, and Helen were ever involved

Well I certainly do not doubt Agamemnon, Menelaus, Clytemnestra, Helen, Odysseus, Achilles, Hector, or the sack of Troy VII around 1300 BCE.

The most likely candidate for Homer is actually Briseis herself. She was a hostage of the Greeks, and homer means hostage.

Whether Odysseus took her with him after the deaths of Achilles and Agamemnon is possible, and then she would have also known the story of Odysseus too, only just having left herself out.

The other possibility of Homer was Helen herself.

It is clear that a woman composed The Odyssey. It is not clear if the same person also composed the Iliad as well.

I don't think I've ever read a bigger croc of shit than you have written here.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I don't think I've ever read a bigger croc of shit than you have written here.

You certainly sound like a nasty beastie.

I am guessing that you don't have a lot of friends and that you are on a lot of ignore lists because of your ad hom's.

I suggest you look up ad hom, because your understanding of it is about as good as your understanding of Homer.
What I did is simply insult you and declare your ideas a croc of shite: which is accurate.

Briseis is the best candidate for Homer, because Homer means hostage.
It's not like she was the only hostage in the canon. The canon was obviously written by a man; and highly unlikely that a woman would have written anything - let alone a girl that would remain a slave, owned by the Greeks. And most scholars have drawn attention to the fact that Homer also means 'blind". And there was a running myth throughout the Greek world about blind men telling stories for their keep; blind seers, and blind itinerant scholars; one is reminded of Teresias. Blindness was a common disease in the ancient world, and those afflicted had limited options: one of them being oral skill.
The rest of your suggestions were equally absurd.

For this to be an ad hominem, I would be adducing some flaw in your character as reason for your failure to make sense. But I did not, thus no ad hominem. Look it up and educate yourself. I'd also suggest that you read more than one book about the Trojan War.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I don't think I've ever read a bigger croc of shit than you have written here.

You certainly sound like a nasty beastie.

I am guessing that you don't have a lot of friends and that you are on a lot of ignore lists because of your ad hom's.

I suggest you look up ad hom, because your understanding of it is about as good as your understanding of Homer.
What I did is simply insult you and declare your ideas a croc of shite: which is accurate.

Briseis is the best candidate for Homer, because Homer means hostage.
It's not like she was the only hostage in the canon. The canon was obviously written by a man; and highly unlikely that a woman would have written anything - let alone an illiterate slave girl. And most scholars have drawn attention to the fact that Homer also means 'blind". And there was a running myth throughout the Greek world about blind men telling stories for their keep; blind seers, and blind itinerant scholars; one is reminded of Teresias. Blindness was a common disease in the ancient world, and those afflicted had limited options: one of them being oral skill.
The rest of your suggestions were equally absurd.

For this to be an ad hominem, I would be adducing some flaw in your character as reason for your failure to make sense. But I did not, thus no ad hominem. Look it up and educate yourself. I'd also suggest that you read more than one book about the Trojan War.

Your ad hom's are simply all because of your own mouth. They have nothing to do with me. Goodbye forever.